Live data from Hacker News

100 years of whatever this will be

apenwarr.ca

331–340 of 924 posts

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#331
post #42
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really sorry, bud, but I count you as one of my "beyond reason" group. Sure, your technical solution will bring in utopia!

There will never be a utopia because when you eliminate one set of problems you reveal new ones. The fact that we are even discussing this is because we are not dying of cholera, starving, or being eaten by lions. The goal is to advance one step at a time. Eliminating civilizational SPOFs would be a fairly large step.

[deleted]

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#332
post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad it went well for you :) All of those guarantees are under threat of legal punishment enforced through court systems. All of those guarantees are given to you based on good standing with various institutions. The bank, the intermediary, the seller. If you were a person who was not in good standing with a bank, but you still had the money, could you have completed the transaction? Technology has a trend of des…

If I'm a person who has money but is in bad standing with the banks, maybe I shouldn't be able to do financial transactions at all. It's that, or I'm imagining the wrong reasons why a person with money would have trouble with banks.

Totally agree, as long as the reasons the banks have are valid.

The problem is that that decision is made by people. Standards of conduct are not universal. What if political affiliation or COVID vaccination status affects your ability to transact with a bank, even though those things have nothing to do with buying or selling real estate

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#333

All of the current histrionics that we hear from DeFi advocates regarding escaping the evil centralized Banks and Regulators and what not -- you know what they remind me of? They remind me of what I hear from junior developers when they're tasked with fixing an antiquated, broken software system. These developers typically lack the experience and the patience necessary to fix the system incrementally from within, so…

Working in finance myself, I totally agree with you on the regulators lint. Everyone arguing regulators are evil is genuinely tech and finance savvy. The regulator is not there to protect them. They are there to protect the vast majority - not only from the outright criminals but also the slightly evil financial services companies (see the Wonga and payday loans debacle in the UK). Say what you like about regulators…

> Everyone arguing regulators are evil is genuinely tech and finance savvy. The regulator is not there to protect them. They are there to protect the vast majority

I agree. But a funny thing I wanted to remark on is that this dynamic makes defi (and any other esoterica) better (or less worse, depending on your POV) than it "deserves" to be. It essentially functions as a less-regulated side track for those savvy enough to use it, and this self-selecting population is one that does not need as much regulation as the general population. Of course, this is until defi gets packaged into nice, consumer-friendly products you can buy with a couple of swipes, which is already happening.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#334
I suspect I do not agree with many of the political opinions of this writer. Yet, I find myself strongly agreeing with the general conclusions. Of course, specificity and implementation is probably where the civil war breaks out.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like anything we could ever hope to try is already accounted for and defeated before the effort even begins. Gay marriage, the fall of communism, civil rights, universal health care (in every rich country but one), women's rights. Don't forget about the very important real progress being made.

I've never understood the reason we even have marriage defined in government at all, and thusly would include "gay" marriage (all marriage is marriage if it's undefined)... We don't have a government definition of prayer or baptism, but for some reason we have have codified that one religious practice into our government? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Also why do they get varyingly get tax incentives or disincen…

Marriage is a contract. Governments regulate the enforcement of contracts. That's why they're involved.

The religious part of marriage is entirely optional.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#336
post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But we do need rules like if I give you money for something and then you tell me to get lost... That would be "larceny", and there are lots of rules prohibiting it & court systems to recoup damages. Credit card companies (for example) are just a more-rapid arbitration mechanism.

That's part of the point of the article. Those rules are not some kind of distributed system. They are centralized.

that's half true.

every actor in the system has its own ledger and they reconcile transactions at a given point in time.

you don't need to know what others are doing or who they are.

your bank authorize your transactions and then some other bank receives the order to deposit the money on another account they control.

in this sense banking is more decentralized than "one true ledger to rule them all"

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#337
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Central panning doesn't scale because of limits to economic knowledge and calculation. You can't possibly know enough about what everyone needs or wants in an economy. Even if you did, calculating resource allocation based on that is NP.

We definitely do broad-strokes central planning in the US and every other developed country with tax system design, social support systems, and industrial policy. The Soviet Union sucked, but it lasted an extremely long time. The moral of the story is central planning kinda does work, just not very well if you do too much of it.

> The Soviet Union sucked, but it lasted an extremely long time.

Less than a century is not "an extremely long time," and its citizens majorly suffered under the central planning. There was nothing successful about the Soviet Union.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the argument is that transferrable. As a developer you don't really live within the legacy systems. At most you're a politician negotiating between the different component parts. Society is different. I don't like DeFi, but I get what they're feeling. It feels like society has left us behind. Like anything we could ever hope to try is already accounted for and defeated before the effort even begins. You…

I think there’s a nuance here in the sense that progress happens both inside the established system and outside it - grassroots campaigns, protests, local initiatives, etc. I think the key issue is that it seems like so many smart people are looking to solve things from the outside rather than involve themselves with the current system, and we need to move that pendulum back quite a bit.

I'd argue that all the things you are listing are also on the inside of the system. There's certainly an element of rebellion to protests for example, but it's also a consolation price. Elon Musk doesn't have to protest, neither does Jeff Bozos. They just call up their preferred politician and the system dances for them. Protests are an opium fed to the disenfranchised masses to keep them from fundamentally changing the system. It's the last pressure valve. Kept just out of reach so that people won't use it, but highlighted to make sure that you aren't allowed to change the system without first doing it.

I think the system is whack, and that's the reason people don't want to fight it. They've given up.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#339

All of the current histrionics that we hear from DeFi advocates regarding escaping the evil centralized Banks and Regulators and what not -- you know what they remind me of? They remind me of what I hear from junior developers when they're tasked with fixing an antiquated, broken software system. These developers typically lack the experience and the patience necessary to fix the system incrementally from within, so…

The lava layer anti-pattern springs to mind, where the new tech becomes another quirk of the old tech.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference here is that the existing codebase isn't just broken, it's structurally resistant to being fixed. Fixing your old legacy software takes time, but probably less time than starting over from scratch. Fixing the legacy financial system doesn't just take the time to fix that system; first you have to fix the system of politics and corruption that makes that system what it is. And fight all of the people wi…

a legacy codebase can be structurally resistant to being fixed. you're afraid to change things because there's no test coverage. okay let's add some automated tests. oops can't do that either because the whole thing is a tightly-coupled pile of spaghetti with no interface boundaries. so you start by refactoring. but because there are no tests, you don't realize you are breaking a bunch of important business functiona…

This captures the backwards compatibility and long range entangled dependencies aspect of change resistance. It misses the aspect of organizations that is agent like, capable of homeostasis. Unlike static code, when things change, such systems will actively seek policies and apply levers of control to maintain the present equilibrium.

Like biological agents, I'd argue any persistent and stable organization of humans makes predictions and inferences about the future and takes actions which maximize the probability of their future existence as a coherent entity.

Post reply on HN